An atheist question about Hinduism

[atanu]

Chhandogya Upanishad - 'Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman), 'Tat twam asi' (You are that), 'Ekam evadvitiyam brahma' - (Brahman is one, without a second), Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman).....

Of course. But 'prajnanam brahman' is also from Chandogya. Brahman is 'satyam jnanam anantam'. Brahman is 'sat chit ananda'.

Purusha is intelligence that controls Prakriti. Kaivalya is Purusha un-entangling from Prakriti completely.

Ignoring the jnana part makes all these astika darsana same as Lokyata/Charvaka darsana.

Lokyayata/Charvaka are not part of Hinduism.

 

[Madhuri]

So you are saying that Vedanta is agnostic in relation to a creator God, but theistic in relation to an all-encompassing God?

NOPE. Vedanta includes a range of different schools of thought. They range from complete dualism to complete monism.
So for example, both the dual school (Dvaita) and Bhedhabheda (the one I lean toward) believe in a creator God. The Dvaita believe this God is separate to his creation. The Bhedhabheda believe that he is also all-encompassing.

 

[Madhuri]

Aren't Samkhya and Vedanta at least both examples of Hinduism, or failing that of Sanatana Dharma?

Yes, of course they are both part of Hinduism.

One thing that makes Samkhya different to Vedanta is it's lack of reference or dependence on Vedic scripture. It also seems to exclude Brahman but focus solely on Purusha and Prakriti (ie/ God/Goddess). It is highly if not entirely dualistic.

 

[atanu]

NOPE. Vedanta includes a range of different schools of thought. They range from complete dualism to complete monism.
So for example, both the dual school (Dvaita) and Bhedhabheda (the one I lean toward) believe in a creator God. The Dvaita believe this God is separate to his creation. The Bhedhabheda believe that he is also all-encompassing.

Madhuri

Vedanta is expressed in the Vedanta Sutras or Brahma Sutras, which defines brahman as that wherefrom the acts of creation, maintenance, and destruction proceed. The Vedanta Sutras derive as to how it is brahman that is the object of adoration and goal of the Vedas.

All vedantic schools adore and worship this brahman, as saguna or as nirgunam.

 

[Madhuri]

The Vedanta Sutras derive as to how it is brahman that is the object of adoration and goal of the Vedas.

True, and each school then interprets Brahman somewhat differently. Like Dvaita school sees Brahman and Vishnu to be one and the same. And Bhedhabheda sees Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan to be different but eternal/equal aspects of the One.

 

[atanu]

True, and each school then interprets Brahman somewhat differently. Like Dvaita school sees Brahman and Vishnu to be one and the same. And Bhedhabheda sees Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan to be different but eternal/equal aspects of the One.

Yes. and the point is that no school of Hinduism, whether Vedic or Vedantic or Agamic, rejects loving adoration of the Supreme.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes. and the point is that no school of Hinduism, whether Vedic or Vedantic or Agamic, rejects loving adoration of the Supreme.

What atributes does the Supreme have, though? Is it perhaps an ideal instead of an entity - or even a deity?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It can be adored as the involved Supreme Spirit, or as the uninvolved Supreme Spirit, or taken as just the ultimate constituent of all things in the universe. It is never just an ideal, it is always 'what truly exists'.

Aren't Samkhya and Vedanta at least both examples of Hinduism, or failing that of Sanatana Dharma?

They are, but no similarities between themselves. Samkhya is dvaita, the antonym of advaita.

Yes. and the point is that no school of Hinduism, whether Vedic or Vedantic or Agamic, rejects loving adoration of the Supreme.

Vaisesika deoes. The paramāṇus (atoms) are indivisible and eternal, they can neither be created nor destroyed. Each paramāṇu (atom) possesses its own distinct viśeṣa (individuality). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisesika#The_atomic_theory Kanada was asked his final verdict on his death-bed, he is supposed to have said 'Pilu, pilu, pilu' (atoms, atoms, atoms) before giving up the ghost.

 

[Madhuri]

What atributes does the Supreme have, though? Is it perhaps an ideal instead of an entity - or even a deity?

I'm curious to see what the Advaita perspective is on this but from non-Advaita perspectives the Supreme/God has infinite attributes.

 

[Madhuri]

They are, but no similarities between themselves. Samkhya is dvaita, the antonym of advaita.

Vedanta also includes Dvaita though.

 

[atanu]

What atributes does the Supreme have, though? Is it perhaps an ideal instead of an entity - or even a deity?

It was stated earlier. As per advaita, Taittiriya upanishad Sruti, Brahman's self nature is 'Existence, Intelligence, and infinititude'.

Now, this is not same as external attributes that we know as adjectives.

To try to make the concept clear, i will draw attention to our own experience.

Those who meditate and have experienced Sunya (or the fullness) in a mindless state will agree that the pure awareness, existence , and boundari-less nature of the Sunya is not actually depict-able with adjectives. So, it is ineffable or nirgunam,

That should not muddy the water even more, i am afraid.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm curious to see what the Advaita perspective is on this but from non-Advaita perspectives the Supreme/God has infinite attributes.

Not trying to be tricky, but the question has presented itself to me: if God has infinite attributes, is Supreme Transcendence one of them? Including Transcendence of existence itself?

 

[atanu]

Vedanta also includes Dvaita though.

Advaita includes the full scope of Samkhya: The Tattvas and the discrimination between conscious purusha and unconscious prakriti, and then the enquiry as to the real nature of the Witness consciousness.

 

[LuisDantas]

It was stated earlier. As per advaita, Taittiriya upanishad Sruti, Brahman's self nature is 'Existence, Intelligence, and infinititude'.

Now, this not same as external attributes that we know as adjectives.

To try to make the concept clear, i will draw attention to our own experience.

Those who meditate and have experienced Sunya (or the fullness) in a mindless state will agree that the pure awareness, existence , and boundari-less nature of the Sunya is not actually depict-able with adjectives. So, it is ineffable or nirgunam,

That should not muddy the water even more, i am afraid.

Yes, that what I was asking about. In a nutshell, can Nirguna Brahma be contained by such a mundane thing as concepts of existence of deity?

Or to put it in another way, does it even make sense to see atheism as denial of Nirguna Brahma? That would imply that atheism - as powerless a stance as they come - is somehow capable of limiting the expression of the Supreme.

Ultimately, the question is whether we should even acknowledge the distinction between theism and atheism as significant far as Dharma is concerned. It seems to me that no, it is not a significant distinction, and it only expresses the style of the practicioner, as opposed to any meaningful properties of reality itself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sure, Hinduism is and always should be inclusive.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure, Hinduism is and always should be inclusive.

"Always" is a strong word. Surely there are things that Hinduism should not attempt to include. I just don't feel that atheism is one of those.

Heck, I so which this DIR were still green. The conversation is great, but I can hardly pretend to be just asking questions at this point. Sorry, I suppose. And thanks, or something. See you in the Dharmic Religions DIR, perhaps.

 

[atanu]

Yes, that what I was asking about. In a nutshell, can Nirguna Brahma be contained by such a mundane thing as concepts of existence of deity?

Or to put it in another way, does it even make sense to see atheism as denial of Nirguna Brahma? That would imply that atheism - as powerless a stance as they come - is somehow capable of limiting the expression of the Supreme.

Ultimately, the question is whether we should even acknowledge the distinction between theism and atheism as significant far as Dharma is concerned. It seems to me that no, it is not a significant distinction, and it only expresses the style of the practicioner, as opposed to any meaningful properties of reality itself.

I agree. But I will point out two problems.

1. An atheist who does not believe in a consciousness independent of Prakriti, is rejecting Veda and its darsana-s, including Samkhya.

2. Saying brahman alone is and/or brahman is all, is advaita. Ok. But then the advaita is broken by superposition of a word atheism, since then, one more atheists and one or more theists are called for.

In other words, in paramarthika view, advaita and atheism/atheist do not go together. In the vayvarika, all advaita teachers have taught theistic practices, since divinities beyond the mind-senses is accepted.

So, in my view, a belief in above two positions together, is not Vedic, Vedantic, or Agamic, includin the Samkhya.

A belief of the two points listed above is Lokyata darsana, which is not Hinduism.

 

[Madhuri]

Not trying to be tricky, but the question has presented itself to me: if God has infinite attributes, is Supreme Transcendence one of them? Including Transcendence of existence itself?

In the panentheistic sense, yes, absolutely.
He is both existence and beyond existence at the same time.

 

[atanu]

"Always" is a strong word. Surely there are things that Hinduism should not attempt to include. I just don't feel that atheism is one of those.

Heck, I so which this DIR were still green. The conversation is great, but I can hardly pretend to be just asking questions at this point. Sorry, I suppose. And thanks, or something. See you in the Dharmic Religions DIR, perhaps.

I think that asking questions, even in a debate mode, is fine, as long as, one does not impose one's view as the final word and especially if that view is in contrast to all other views of the Dir members.

Well the above is my opinion only.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree. But I will point out two problems.

1. An atheist who does not believe in a consciousness independent of Prakriti, is rejecting Veda and its darsana-s, including Samkhya.

Maybe so. But it is not clear to me that an atheist will necessarily have such a strictly phenomenological perspective (assuming I understood correctly what you say here).

2. Saying brahman alone is and/or brahman is all, is advaita. Ok. But then the advaita is broken by superposition of a word atheism, since then, one more atheists and one or more theists are called for.

Maybe atheistic advaita is indeed a contradiction of terms. I can't say that I know otherwise. But I don't know that it is, either. You seem to be saying that it is, but I am not following.

To be sincere, the wording after "superposition" is very difficult and I can't make heads or tails of it.

In other words, in paramarthika view, advaita and atheism/atheist do not go together. In the vayvarika, all advaita teachers have taught theistic practices, since divinities beyond the mind-senses is accepted.

So, in my view, a belief in above two positions together, is not Vedic, Vedantic, or Agamic, includin the Samkhya.

A belief of the two points listed above is Lokyata darsana, which is not Hinduism.

I will have to simply accept that this is your view. I can just barely understand your first statement above, and I am not sure I agree with it.

All of the text after that I currently have no means of understanding, much less having an opinion about.